Want a philosphy thread?

Sounds good to me.

Not here.

Does it look like I care?

I thought it would be nice to have a thread were everyone can talk about stuff like politics, philosophy, world problems, human nature and other nonsense. Please put an honest reply in the voting box whether if it's yes or no.

This online community tends to be much friendlier and well-mannered than most. I think that we've managed to be civil, even when touchy subjects have come up in the past. Even our trolls are fairly likeable.
I've respected when members have said they don't like where a conversation is going and done what I can to redirect it. I still thoroughly enjoy touching on those sensitive subjects because they're too often ruled off-limits on the off chance that someone will be overly sensitive. I do what I can to tactfully represent my position, and I address opposing viewpoints without resorting to derogatory attacks or inflammatory comments.

In addition, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we should avoid talking about subjects we find interesting on the off chance that someone might get offended. If someone doesn't like the way the thread is progressing, they honestly don't have to read it.

So long as the discussions don't devolve to name-calling and personal attacks, there shouldn't be any problem with discussing weightier matters.

I believe as long as the discussions remain subjective, and no group, person, or entity becomes under attack, that such discussions stimulate intellectual growth. There is no way to completely avoid touching on "sensitive" subjects, but people must be willing to be open to different arguments; a subject should not condemned just because a few people do not like it or do not agree. As long as no one is under direct attack, such discussions are necessary. I, without a doubt, have probably offended many people without meaning to. That is because anything can be upsetting to another individual; trying to avoid that one thing (that is taboo to an individual) is impossible. You just have to be respectful, and have to refrain from attacking people's views, positions, beliefs, ect. Good arguments, for the sake of intellectual pursuit, are not meant to create bad blood; they are actually meant to be games to challenge the brain. This technique (Socratic method) has been used as a teaching tool since the Greek's time. Your views should not change even when under attack; you are able to defend it with words rather then actions. By using your intellect, you attempt to better your opponent while respecting his views as well. That is the difference between two intellectual men arguing over something and two ignorant fools arguing over nothing.

I think that purposely avoiding the discussion of specific organizations would be problematic. First of all, any political discourse would be incredibly difficult to conduct without mentioning individual politicians and/or their affiliated parties. Secondly, there are important social issues that directly relate to certain groups, like the Catholic Church's lying about the health benefits of contraceptives to their congregations in Africa (They have actually told many of their followers that condoms cause AIDS, thus helping the spread of the very disease that condoms would be instrumental in controlling.)

However, with that in mind, I don't want this to become a place to spout unfounded, hateful dialogue. There is no cause to spout nonsense about the Elders of Zion (mainly because it's a piece of fiction that came from the secret police of imperial Russia) or other racially motivated diatribes. There is a definite difference between purely hateful speech and addressing the issues brought about by conflicts of interests and ideas.

I use debate and discussion as a way to not only understand the perspectives of opposing viewpoints, but also as a way to better form my own thoughts and even possibly see what positions of mine are carefully considered and which may be purely reactionary. It makes me better and exercises valuable language and communication skills.
So long as everyone can be respectful (which I don't believe has been a problem in the past) there shouldn't be any problem with any viable discussion.